Methinks they do protest too much

A serious methodological error was committed by Stephens et al. (1972), the protestations of the present critics notwithstanding. When studying the relationship between two sets of variables, it is clearly wrong to hold chonological age constant in one set and allow it to vary in the other. This error spuriously reduces the correlation between the two sets. A demonstration that the two sets define different first-order factors provides very little information about the degree of relationship present, which must be derived from the intercorrelations of those factors. In the original research, these were also biased by the methodological error. The conclusion of Humphreys and Parsons that Piagetian tasks and intelligence tests could be used interchangeably is reinforced. The hypothesis that the relatively small amount of unique variance in the Piagetian composite is relatively unimportant psychologically can only be discarded on the basis of good empirical research, not debater's arguments.     

Effects of neutral and positive stimuli on stuttering: “Calling attention to stuttering” revisited

This study investigated the effects of presumably positive and neutral response-contingent stimuli on the occurence of stuttering. Eight adult stutterers spoke spontaneously during a 60-min experimental session, which was divided into three 20-min periods. During Condition I no stimuli were delivered. During Condition II a digital counter and a pair of yellow lights were activated each time the subject stuttered. During Condition III these same response-contingent stimuli were delivered, but with the additional factor that the subject would earn 5¢ each time the counter moved forward and the lights were illuminated. Conditions II and III were counterbalanced across subjects. The experimenter was unaware of which of the two contingencies were operative during Conditions II and III. Results showed no significant changes in occurence of stuttering due to either response-contingent stimulus. A discussion of theoretical and experimental implications is given.     

An individualistic approach to the evaluation and remediation of stuttering

A decision model is presented to facilitate the evaluation of stuttering behavior. This model calls for the evaluation to be conducted along a continuum with specified initiation and termination points. Following the evaluation, the information is formulated into an organized remediation procedure leading to fluent productions in the individual. This approach allows evaluation and remediation to be individualized to meet the needs and capabilities of each stutterer while allowing the professional the flexibility to choose remediation materials on the basis of objective information. Two case studies are presented to illustrate the use of the approach.     

Statistical significance tests for binormal ROC curves

Statistical significance tests are derived and evaluated for measuring apparent differences between an obtained and an expected binormal ROC curve, between two independent binormal ROC curves, and among groups of independent binormal ROC curves. A binormal ROC curve is described by two parameters which represent the spread of the means and the ratio of the standard deviations of the two underlying Gaussian decision variable distributions. To test the significance of apparent differences between or among ROC curves, approximate χ² statistics for each of the three tests were constructed from maximum likelihood estimates of the two parameters defining the binormal ROC curve. The performance of each test statistic was evaluated by simulating five-category rating scale data with equal numbers of noise and signal-plus-noise trials (set at 50, 250, and 500) for each of three typical ROC curves. For the significance test involving only one ROC curve, rating scale data were generated from the chance diagonal of the ROC space also. Although test performance was found to be somewhat dependent on the number of trials and on the location of the ROC curve in the ROC space, comparisons of the obtained and expected fractions of (falsely) significant results at various α levels showed the proposed statistical significance tests to be reliable under practical experimental conditions.     

A set-theoretic random utility model of choice behavior

A random utility model of choice was developed by combining the basic ideas of the well-known theories of Thurstone and Restle. The new model has exactly the same number of free parameters as Tversky's Elimination-by-Aspects model. Furthermore, both models were found to fit, with equal accuracy, the data reported by Rumelhart and Greeno, and Tversky. It was concluded that although the two theories are not identical, they may be difficult to discriminate empirically.     

The effects of expected future interaction and prior group support on the conformity process

Previous results indicate that people conform more to group judgments when they have received unanimous group support for their opinions than when they have received no support. The present study tested the hypothesis that these differences would be attenuated when future interaction with the group members was anticipated. The 70 male subjects were tested in a Crutchfield-type conformity situation, where prior group support (100 vs 0%) and anticipation of future interaction (alone vs group) were manipulated. Predictions were based on an examination of conformity incentives that considered normative and informational sources of social influence, as well as Hollander's model of idiosyncracy credit. Consistent with predictions, conformity in the 0% prior support condition was greater when subjects anticipated future group interaction than when they did not, whereas the reverse was true in the 100% prior support condition. In addition, conformity was correlated negatively with both confidence in task ability and feelings of group acceptance when future interaction with the group was anticipated. These data suggest that when future group activity is expected, the tendency to reciprocate past treatment from the group is reduced.     

Asymmetric attributions for compliance: Reward vs punishment

It was proposed that people attribute an individual's behavior more to internal factors when that individual's actions are influenced by reward than when those actions are influenced by punishment. Previous research has failed to control for the power of reward versus punishment which, in effect, creates a confounding of behavioral base rates (consensus) with the reward-punishment manipulation. The current research created reward and punishment contingencies that were equal in their base rates for producing a compliant response. In Experiment 1, subjects (n = 63) who produced the base-rate data also made attributions regarding a compliant target person. The results supported the reward-punishment attributional asymmetry hypothesis in that the target person was held more responsible for his actions in the reward than in the punishment conditions. A second experiment (n = 72) provided some attributors with information regarding base rates for compliance and measured perceived base rates for compliance. Knowledge of the base rates for compliance eliminated the reward-punishment attributional asymmetry phenomenon. Subjects not provided with such knowledge erroneously assumed different base rates for reward and punishment and maintained the perception of reward-punishment attributional asymmetry. Using subjects' estimates of base rate for compliance as a covariate eliminated the attributional asymmetry effect. It is suggested that erroneous base-rate assumptions mediate the attributional asymmetry phenomenon.     

Self-esteem and cognitive consistency effects on self-other evaluation

Reactions to bogus evaluations of one's self, either positively or negatively discrepant from one's own self-evaluation, were investigated among subjects differing in self-ideal discrepancy. All subjects exhibited greater acceptance of the source of favorable information than the source of unfavorable information, and changed their self-evaluation more toward the favorable than unfavorable position. However, among low self-ideal discrepancy subjects, the change in self-evaluation was accompanied by a similar change in friend evaluation, thereby maintaining their standing in relation to this friend after receiving either positive or negative evaluations. In contrast, high discrepancy subjects downgraded the friend more and upgraded the friend less than themselves, thereby enhancing their relative standing as a result of the feedback. These findings indicated that defensive or self-enhancing effects on self-evaluation processes are determined by self-ideal discrepancy.